Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Who Watches the Watchmen (Our Chit Chat Thread)
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
They're very samey indeed. Now part of that is their ubiquitousness and all the copies out there(which demonstrates the appeal of that singular design), but they have an extremely narrow design language and one that doesn't change very much at all over time. An extra line, or different dial colour, or slightly bigger or smaller, the minutiae that fans of the brand get excited about and like doesn't change that.To be fair the bulk of their range is uber conservative and samey. They are nearly all sports watches with bezels and the same basic dial. The sub, the GMT, the deep sea, the yachtmaster, the explorer II. None have display backs. They mix up the colour of the bezel now and again or stick a red line of text on it and people go wild. The odd monstrosity like a rainbow daytona or iced out versions of the above doesn't do much to deviate from the core line of what they do. The explorer and OP are very bland and samey too. I'll give them the Milgaus, that's kind of a curveball. Clearly this all works and people seem to love it, but let's call a spade a spade.
Yes the Milgauss is a curveball, but even here it's an Oyster Perpetual with a different coloured dial, a green crystal and a lightning bolt seconds hand(unless it's the discontinued white dial one which is baslcally a handset and dial printing). Hell it's written on the dial Oyster Perpetual Milgauss. For me the Yachtmaster is the most deviated from the norm in their range, but even here it's only sticking a toe over the hard lines of their design.
Even in the let's all try something different 1970's their Oysterquartz looks like picked up a generic Genta clone six years too late and glued a datejust on top of it.
A round peg in a square hole.
The joke is they had a much more cohesive design in 1970 and featuring the Beta 21 quartz, but...
And note it's in white gold and could be steel on first glance and has an integrated bracelet, squared off case, a year before Genta's apparently "ohmigod it's so different. A brand new design language!!! we hear repeated on the interwebs. Genta's AP is a great design and better realised than the above, but it didn't fall out of the sky.
But yeah Rolex are extremely staid and that is as you note a huge part of their appeal for much of their market, they're traditional and safe. A comfortable pair of design language brogues. Nothing wrong with that either, but it's a huge stretch to suggest they're in any way out there.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Nope. Again you're speaking of tiny changes around a very strong central theme. The movements and amagnetic stuff is nada to do with the visual design and hardly groundbreaking. Industry leading service intervals are absolutely nothing to do with their visual designs. Adding a mm or two to a case sizes isn't changing the design. It's just bigger or smaller.So we can all agree that apart from the milgauss, airking, yacht master 2, skydwellwr, and the diamond stuff people don't like cause it too different...Rolex have been doing the same thing for years. Well apart from changing the movements, amagnetic hairsprings, case sizes, case designs, case materials and industry leading service intervals....what have the Romans ever done for us eh.
Case materials are again nothing to do with the visual design of the item. Oh a different form of steel to the "swedish steel" we used before. Well I never. That changes everything. Not. Case designs are so near identical that a pic of most of their range from twenty years ago would look identical to one of yesterday to the vast majority of observers. There's a reason dealers and bloggists first started going on about reference numbers around Rolex(other than pretension). "This one has a serif on the R, so it's a reference number 12345b, not a 12345a, that has a different colour white R". Adding diamonds is bling, not design(though of course has to be factory or you're a rapper). I could cover a particular model of a 5 series BMW's grill in rhinestones, it still unmistakeably a particular model of a 5 series BMW.
The visual design language of Rolex is undeniably conservative, narrow and changes little over time. It's about the most principle trait and buying attractant about the brand. Their timeless designs(no pun) which people talk about.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I have 2 pairs of Montblanc specs if they count? :P
That said, 1 of those pairs are quite reminiscent of bloody Himmler's glasses so they are only worn in extremis.
I have a couple of cross pens that my Step Dad won as prizes in the listowel writers competition, roller balls but quite nice all the same.
I am toying with the idea of a pen as a reward if I manage a 1:1 in the degree but it may yet end up being a watch, or both, or maybe coke and hookers!
0 -
-
I have 2 pairs of Montblanc specs if they count? :P
That said, 1 of those pairs are quite reminiscent of bloody Himmler's glasses so they are only worn in extremis.
I have a couple of cross pens that my Step Dad won as prizes in the listowel writers competition, roller balls but quite nice all the same.
I am toying with the idea of a pen as a reward if I manage a 1:1 in the degree but it may yet end up being a watch, or both, or maybe coke and hookers!
I just finished my degree, i went with all three of the above. Would highly recommend.0 -
-
From 1972. Girard Perregaux Quartz.
This movement design influenced the frequency standard for 99% of quartz watches that followed. It was a collaboration between Girard Perregaux who designed and built the quartz module and JLC who designed and built the mechanical gears and date function. No jewels, instead they used teflon bearings to massively reduce maintenance cycles and was designed to be serviced by existing watchmakers.
What happened to GP at all, you have a bunch of them from the 70's but modern ones are honestly not great and very derivative choosing to copy the designs of other more successful brands
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
They were always a tiny company. IIRC they only produce 15000 watches a year. They've been around since the 18th century chugging along. Their main innovations were their three bridge layout and with a display front of all things in a 19th century pocketwatch. There was the interwebs fact that they produced the first man's wristwatch of the German navy in the 1880's but that has zero evidence behind it. Then not a lot happened until the 60's when they brought out the first high beat series production movement, then their quartz movement with JLC which was a sales and innovation highpoint for them and it kept being so for ten years. Like Hans Wilsdorf before them with a mechanical wristwatch movement they were the first to submit a quartz movement for chronometer testing. Actually they went further and submitted it for observatory trials, a much higher standard. That was also the time they brought out their Laureato, which became a big hit for them as Italian parents started gifting them to their college graduating kids and that spread to other markets. Latterly they've been experimenting with materials and funky escapements, but yeah they're very much a tiny niche brand.What happened to GP at all, you have a bunch of them from the 70's but modern ones are honestly not great and very derivative choosing to copy the designs of other more successful brands.
As for copying "the designs of other more successful brands"? This is the first Laureato.
It came out two years before Patek and IWC's Gentafied offerings and fully five years before Rolex's. So Patek, IWC and Rolex were just as derivative and slower with it. Never mind the design trend was already in place before Genta, he just refined it wonderfully. IMHO the AP is the most cohesive and purest of the lot. The Patek in particular is a Genta and Patek being lazy.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
For those of you that have Montblancs, what's the story with the "resin' that the Mesisterstucks are made from? Is this essentially just plastic? Kind of like the Breitling endurance Pro and "Britelight". What exactly is "precious resin"?
As far as I can see
I bought some special version that’s matte I can’t stand scratched up shiney ‘special resin ‘
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
The price.What exactly is "precious resin"? No really that's it. The first time I noticed "resin" instead of "plastic" in advertising was in those unbelievably tacky Franklin Mint "special edition" offerings you'd see advertised in magazines(they did watches on occasion too). Viz comic did a brilliant parody of them.
"Vermin Mint". :pac: You could buy one from Viz for a time. I was so tempted.
But yeah in those ads it was never plastic, but "resin", though even that temple of tat refrained from adding "precious" to it.
Now we can all have a laugh at the sheer scale of Franklin mint tackiness, but that crap sold like hotcakes to people who liked ornaments(which was a lot of people back in the day, only budget differed). The company made squillions for donkey's years. The "luxury" brands use pretty much the exact same set of marketing points. They just do it far better and more "classsssy" and of course the product is generally significantly better quality. But look at the number of "special editions" and "limited editions" that have production runs in their many many thousands. Montblanc's precious resin is kinda taking the piss too. Now if it were some autoclaved kevlar/carbon fibre stuff, they'd have more of a leg to stand on, but even there. That stuff is no longer nearly as pricey as it once was, especially for small stuff. Lidl regularly have perfectly serviceable and well made carbon fly fishing rods 9 feet long for under 30 quid. You'd get a fair few pen cases cutting up one of them.
Though that can illustrate the daftness we're all prey to. Those 30 quid fly rods are perfectly fine for purpose, but you can go out and buy a 1000 quid plus carbon fly rod made from the finest unobtanium and many do. Is it a superior casting rod? Hell yes. Is it 1000 quid more superior? Hell no. Will it catch more trout? Absolutely not. As my dad wise and correctly once said to me, the fish neither knows who you are nor what you paid for the rod. And yet I fly fish with a vintage Hexagraph, that apes the bamboo splitcane rods of old in carbon fibre, a trick automatic reel and a natural silk* flyline. Daftness.
*Though IMH the natural silk is actually superior line to the latest plastic ones. Mostly...Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
They were never particularly desirable anyway, save for a brief period in the 70's. There's a longer list of what happened to them brands out there who were innovative and big sellers too.Yeah but the question is what happened to them? They are no about as desirable as Covid now.
Yes it's derivative, just as derivative as Patek and IWC and Omega and a host of others who brought out similar.Have to pull you up on the gotcha selective history there Wibbs the first Loreato was mid 1970's first Royal oak was 72 so its a derivative of the AP, you are being selective choosing Patek and IWC to compare to, makes it look more original than it is.
JLC 1972
GP 1972. Three years before Laureato.
Omega Mariner 1973. Mine, to keep it piccy too.
Omega were pushing the all steel, integrated bracelet look before Genta.
Zenith Defy 1973
Indeed Zenith were doing the look since the 60's with the Defy range.
Defy 1969
That model is three years before Genta. Widen the bezel, slap a few screwheads into it and bob's your mother's brother. That's being facetious of course, Genta's design is a classic of proportion, but he wasn't even close to operating in some mythical vacuum.
None of the above were cheap watches by any stretch, but not the "big players" either. Of course the cheaper brands jumped on the same bandwagon too. Just like Patek and IWC and Rolex. Though the latter took longer to do so.
Nothing unpalatable about it. Odd word to use. I don't subscribe to your take on history, simply because it inaccurate and simplistic, born of more recent marketing waffle. Maybe that's the unpalatable part.My point here is that like our previous conversations this era was a turning point. I know you dont like that take on history, but the recursive logic that everything was a copy of something before will take you back to sundials. The current big players did something back then that now gets to the seedy core of why people buy watches, as unpalatable as it is.
It was a turning point for many reasons, the oil crisis that took the wind out of obvious luxury purchases, quartz and electronic movements, which in turn tended to make cases much larger, external fashion changes which had started in the 60's which influenced watch design to change with it and one of those changes was larger steel(and gold) watches with integrated bracelets from "quality Swiss brands".
Hardly. For a start the thinner and dressier was already in play from other quarters and "obnoxious money" was already in play too. Though AP took years to sell their first run and in subsequent runs introduced gold back into the mix. Patek, IWC and Rolex were jumping on the same bandwagon as everyone else, they just took their time to do so. That particular design trend was selling across the board, across pricepoints and across brands. Patek will jump on bandwagons on rare occasions. Their pilot's watch in recent years one example. Even claimed a "history" in the genre. Three watches for the late 30's German military to their design, one a pocketwatch, none delivered. Though one genre they avoided was the dive watch. The Nautilus and Aquanaut the closest they came with only the naming referencing the very popular trend at the time and seeking to gain some sales from it.Of course the AP is the best, its the boldest and most masculine even in the smaller "jumbo" sizes. But the Nautillus should not be dismissed a a mere lazy copy. It took the blocky AP and refined it making a thinner, dressier and more refined integrated bracelet watch, and added that patek branding to make it OK to be more sporty, and make it OK to pay obnoxious money for a non precious watch.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Pretty much yeah Fitz, at least in the visual design elements of things. And brands vary on how much they'll drift from the formula, because it's usually the winning one. In this aspect Rolex are extremely "formulaic" with their design language, because clearly it works and straying too far over the line tends to result in quizzical looks from fans and buyers and fewer sales. Omega on the other hand can take their "formulaic" Speedmaster and slap a cartoon Snoopy on the dial and their fans go nuts for it. Different fans, with different likes and wants. If Rolex put a cartoon dog on a Sub there'd be hell to pay. Best not mention the Domino's Pizza Rollies, not quite up there with Comex.Ok so now we agree that all watch design (bar the weird and wonderful stuff) is derivative, and that small design changes (as per the father dougal post above) dont materially change the design of a watch. Then again that was Rolex then. They likely wouldn't put a French dive company logo on their dials, nor Arab potentate's names and they also sold discounted watches in military PX's, but that kinda thing doesn't help the "luxury" tag they've moved into.
Kinda yes. "Best" can also mean who did it more popularly too. So the first "waterproof" watches solutions were as good as the Oyster that came ten years later. The Tavannes Submarine from 1917 was arguably better as it could be wound and set while remaining sealed and had an amagnetic mainspring (and everything else) that Rolex laud today, a century earlier. But they never took off for various reasons. Timing, a solution to a problem the buyers didn't have, crap marketing.Try hard enough and you can trace the routes back as far as you like. So really the historical point making as to the origins of a design is just picking a convenient spot to stop. Maybe its better focus on who did it best rather than who did it first.
You see similar with the perception of genres of watches too. So Breitling are seen as the pilots watch(IWC used to be in that mix too), but in the history of aviation they were actually a small player.
It can also be both. EG the automatic movement. Harwood got there first alright, but it was a quirky solution and too out there in other ways and it was a small company. Rolex's automatic movement was simpler and more robust and was actually useful in removing the need to wind the screwdown crown, so massively reduced wear and tear.
In visual design "best" is harder to pin down as fashions change over time and origins spring from existing trends in the vast majority of cases. For me Genta's AP design is by far the best of that existing trend back then. The rest were variable, some awful to meh(though I love the movement, for me the Rolex Oysterquartz in two tone with reeded bezel is in this category), some OK, some just outright copies of Genta. The original Genta Patek is a nice watch design in isolation, but in my humble it's a watered down - we need to get on this trend, but let's dial back the too radical - version of the AP. Remove screws, slightly melt case and voila. Though Patek had been radical in the late 60's early 70's, but the market wasn't keen and still isn't as those designs are about the cheapest vintage Pateks you can buy. Different customer base again.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement